Copyright Boss: 'It's Great Mechanics Now Need To Know About Copyright'

from the no,-actually,-it's-not dept

The Copyright Office continues to show that it is completely out of touch and tone deaf to the mess that copyright laws create today. We've talked a few times about how abuses of copyright law have created messes for industries that you might think would never have to deal with copyright on a regular basis. Take, for example, mechanics. What does repairing your car have to do with copyrights? In the past, absolutely nothing. More recently, however, it's been a huge deal. That's because automakers have used copyright to lock up diagnostic codes and information concerning onboard computers. The end result is that car owners are often forced to go to dealers (who are expensive) over independent car repair shops. Independent repair shops who circumvent the digital locks on car computers may be found to be violating the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause. As we've noted, this seems like a clear abuse of the DMCA, as it was clearly not designed for such a purpose. Attempts to fix this with "right to repair" legislation have mostly gone nowhere (automakers are powerful lobbyists, and the entertainment industry also doesn't want anything that weakens the anti-circumvention clause).

It would be difficult to look on this turn of events in a positive way no matter what angle you might take. It's clearly abusing copyright law beyond its intended purpose. It's limiting competition. It's making life worse for the public and for small businesses. So how could this possibly be spun as a good thing? Leave that to Copyright Office boss Maria Pallante. At a recent conference all about Section 108 of the Copyright Act, she apparently declared (via Copycense, who was in attendance):

"I think it's really great your car mechanic knows about copyright"

She similarly argued that a big challenge of copyright law is making it more accessible and suggested it was a good thing that it's "no longer" reserved to experts to deal with copyright law. All of that should actually be seen as a pretty massive problem with the system. As a government-granted monopoly privilege that also has free speech implications, we should want copyright to be very carefully limited and calibrated in a manner that it is not something that enters people's everyday lives, and that it's not an issue that a mechanic should ever need to know about. Those are signs of a completely broken system. They're signs that copyright has expanded massively beyond its basic structure, into a monstrosity, often driven by the nature of technology. When your mechanic needs to be an expert in copyright law just to know if he or she can fix your car it may make Maria Pallante happier, because it seems to validate her job, but it should be seen as a huge problem for the system. A copyright system that is working is one that doesn't trouble totally unrelated professions like mechanics. It's only a broken system that would create serious friction in jobs like that. That the head of the Copyright Office does not realize this is pretty frightening.

This is the same line of thought that says that things like six strikes are actually about education.

In both cases the mentality of the insiders is that the public needs education about copyright and it is great that they are learning about IP law. Both instances demonstrate how blind the insiders are about the problems they are causing for the copyright system itself. The insiders can't see that the public is being taught to hate anything to do with copyright and they are actually being educated in methods of circumventing protections. The public is also being taught to avoid dealing with copyright holders if it can be avoided.

It isn't surprising that the copyright office has this perspective considering how interbred they are with RIAA/MPAA lobbyists and attorneys.

As a government-granted monopoly privilege that also has free speech implications, we should want copyright to be very carefully limited and calibrated in a manner that it is not something that enters people's everyday lives, and that it's not an issue that a mechanic should ever need to know about. Those are signs of a completely broken system.

Mike--

Really? Your argument is that a mechanic knowing something about IP is a sign that the system is broken? Cars are very high tech machines, covered by all types of IP. Only you could make such a stupid argument. You're so desperate to find anything wrong with IP. It's hilarious how stupid you come across with idiotic arguments like this. You truly are a fucking joke.

To be fair

If I was the head of a nation-wide cabal that made billions from unending unilaterally binding contracts with the power to ruin lives, I'd probably think their unanticipated infection of new industries was a good thing too.

Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 11th, 2013 @ 10:10am

Re:

Hmmm... well it sounds like that would be a method of learning which would be covered by a patent. But you never know, they may figure out a way to get a copyright on the particular sequence of slaps that best drives home the lesson.

Re:

Re: Can't we sue?

I know all the places I've lived in, they've been required to provide the codes to all mechanics (I believe due to state court action, not a law.) I believe they can still force the mechanics to buy overpriced proprietary software, however.

Re:

Re:

No, it's a valid complaint. Ordinary people, going about their daily business, shouldn't have to know about copyrights, because none of their normal activities should give rise to a material copyright problem. A teacher who hands out copied pages from a book, or a student who makes copies at the library to facilitate writing a paper should be able to do these things without having to spare a moment to think about copyright. A person who tapes a show on TV, or who lends a book to a friend should not need to pause for copyright considerations for even a moment. And a car repairman certainly shouldn't have to worry about such issues.

For most people, copyright should not be an obstacle getting in the way of doing the things they'd like to do. And this should be done by reforming the law so that it gets out of their way.

Some people will still need to know about copyright: the librarian, the tv station, the author and publisher, the company that makes the cars, etc. But they're in the business, and more can reasonably be expected of them.

I don't know much about chemistry, but it seems reasonable to me to regulate industry to make sure that I can be protected from toxic materials in my food without my having to become an expert. This is the same sort of deal.

Re: Re: Can't we sue?

Which is a tautology. If they have to buy overpriced software, what is the point in allowing mechanics to look at the codes? If they build their own software they would get sued to hell, which is exactly because of the copyright. Open source is a very small concession: If nobody can legally use it, it doesn't change much!

Yes, it's great that my car mechanic has to know about copyright, in order to pay the appropiate royalties to the appropiate company, in order to pay for expensive propietary equipment that's unnecessary, unneeded and useless in order to repair my car or truck, and it's great that he has to take much much much longer to do his job -- something that surely, every mechanic wants to waste his or her precious time on -- in order to comply with maximalist copyright policies that are outdated, out-lived, useless and in a world of technology, backwards hillbilly levels of awful.

I have only two words for any copyright moron who thinks this is even CLOSE to logical:

Do the car companies not know of the World Wide Web?

Maintenance cost are a big factor for a lot of Auto review sites. It is also known as TCO. Total Cost of Ownership.

So by doing this they are shooting themselves in the foot. People (even those with a lot of smart money) look at the true cost of owning a vehicle.

When you force people to pay more to maintain their vehicle you make them less happy. And less likely to buy your model.

I buy new every 3 years. And I pick my vehicles based on features and also cost. All things equalized to a low differentiation factor I will always pick the one with an overall lower cost of ownership.

So let's go at it this way. The cost of the vehicle is 65K. During that 3 years of ownership I will spent above and beyond the loan value 6% or 9% of the purchase price to maintain it properly.

I will always decide to buy on the TCO. Always. And anyone that likes to keep their money looks at it the same way. That 3% is not trivial. Not a huge deal but still not a amount of money I would be willing to drop on the street and forget about.

Re:

"Cars are very high tech machines, covered by all types of IP."

Yes, they are. They have trademarks - a mechanic cannot abuse this by sticking a Goodyear sticker on a Michelin tire. They have patents - there may be some parts that a mechanic can ONLY order from the original manufacturer.

But copyright? Seriously? The mechanic surely is not copying any legitimate creative expression. The car's owner owns the title to the entire car, and that includes the on-board computer. If accessing a car's computer at the request of the owner of the car is illegal, then there is something wrong with the laws.

Re: Re: Re:

I can just imagine the conversation.

'Let's see, Mr. Kaskalov, yes, here we go; open heart transplant. Fantastic. Let's see if I can set you up real quick. Just need to contact my IP lawyer for a second, see if I have the rights to the machine and tools I'm using to save your life, and we'll be good to go.

Oh, don't worry. It's not like they can just go 'Naw, you didn't pay up.'..right? Nurse, I did pay the appropiate royalties and everything, right?'

'No, Doctor, you didn't.'

'Welp. Either I'm going to break the law to save your life, or get sued out of business.'

What then happens:

Good Herr Doktor: 'You're on your own pal. Good luck with that failing heart of yours, I'm not going to risk it.'

Bad Herr Doktor: 'Okay, well, whatever. They can sue me all they want, I'm going to save your life and I'm not paying them a DIME for this machine!'

In the future, expect copyright locks, wherein you cannot use the machine you're using, listen to music or drive a car without paying copyright royalties out of the ass, if we let them have their way.

OEM abuse of copyright concepts

The problems being experienced by auto mechanics are the same as those in the business of repair of any other products with digital parts - particularly familiar territory for the independent computer repair companies.

OEMs have taken to claiming copyright protection for routines that have previously been considered part of the hardware - such as the delivery of engineering changes using microcode and firmware rather than shipping a new part.

As with the auto industry - mechanics and repair providers need access to the "recalls" of the digital world, known as patches and fixes, and are being blocked using claims of IP on parts which are otherwise protected by patent law.

How is the manufacturer of an engine control module or ABS brake chip harmed by the auto owner downloading or restoring the applicable recalls for that part?

If this layer of code is to be considered IP - then none of us can own anything digital - including cell phones, televisions, programmable coffee pots, or automobiles.

Our goal at the digital right to repair Coalition (new in January) is to correctly define the hardware-centric routines that serve only to make the equipment work from creative intellectual property, such as application software.

Re: Re:

This has been going on for years.

Back in 2003 (10 years ago) Dodge changed the firmware of the Dodge Cummins so that a Cummins Diesel shop could no longer work on the engines. Most Dodge Cummins owners went to Cummins because they have real diesel mechanics, and Dodge's mechanics by in large knew nothing about Diesels.

I have two Dodge trucks a 99 and a 02. I will not replace them until I absolutely must and I will not replace them with a Dodge.

Frankly, I think if I purchase a vehicle you should be REQUIRED to provide me reasonably priced access to any tools required to access all diagnostics and settings.

Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 11th, 2013 @ 10:10am

So tell me then what do we do when a car breaks down and there is no Certified dealer around walk because the right thing to do is tow to a distant dealer instead to the nearest mechanic? What about when a car manufacturer goes under? do we lose the ability to repair our property? Screw that!

Re:

Being a mechanic now isn't like it was even 20 years ago. Continuing education is mandatory and the technology involved is advancing ever more rapidly meaning there is more to leanr and mroe epxense involved in learning it. I'd rather my mechanic concentrate on fixing my car and not having to worry about whether he should be playing the payola game to do his job. He shouldn't have to be a lawyer or hire a lawyer to be a mechanic or navigate IP laws that are truly the fucking joke

Re: Re:

Just wow. Corrected version below.
Being a mechanic now isn't like it was even 20 years ago. Continuing education is mandatory and the technology involved is advancing ever more rapidly meaning there is more to learn and more expense involved in learning it. I'd rather my mechanic concentrate on fixing my car and not having to worry about whether he should be playing the payola game to do his job. He shouldn't have to be a lawyer or hire a lawyer to be a mechanic or navigate IP laws that are truly the fucking joke.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I posted a very similar comment to yours approximately 5 minutes before you did, and thus I am going to sue you for copyright infringement (since the work was copyrighted the moment I hit the laid the sacrosanct words into the text box and yours is clearly a derivative of mine).

Please provide me with all relevant information so that I may ensure that the subpoena gets delivered correctly.

Re: Re:

The same way you can apparently be breaking IP law by modifying a game system (see all the noise sony has been making about people hacking their Playstations, claiming its a violation of their IP rights)... ie. the world is currently not sane in the slightest

Re: Re: Do the car companies not know of the World Wide Web?

As has been mentioned, error codes and copyright have long been a problem with OEMs. Some years back, before the DMCA came into being, OEMS were claiming the error codes needed to diagnose mechanical problems were propitiatory information and would not be released to the public. Congress ruled they were restrictions to private mechanic trade and passed a law they were to be public.

After DMCA it was simple to claim a digital lock was on the processor and there for illegal to break the lock to read them. So we are still a decade later in the same place we were prior to the DMCA coming into effect.

On the cost of the vehicle, I spent $12,000 on my last new pickup in 1995. That's been 17 years of driving the same vehicle with little or no troubles other than the clutch and transmission work. It's seen one muffler replacement and since nearly all my driving is on the interstate, it still has the factory brakes under it at 200,000 miles. Since the brakes have never faded, never made the sound that they do when worn out, I check them visually every tire change and let it go at that. Last tires changed looked to still have 1/3 pads left.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"In the future, expect copyright locks, wherein you cannot use the machine you're using, listen to music or drive a car without paying copyright royalties out of the ass"

That isn't the future, its the present.
Here is an example from the medical world:
Consider the most commonly used surgical robot which was developed at taxpayer expense by DARPA for battlefield use. The Army decided they didn't want it so a private company now sells the devices for millions of dollars each. The arms of this robot which are stainless steel and don't wear out not anywhere quick enough to suit the company's stockholders, are designed to detect when they enter a human body. After a certain number of passes into the body, the robot is disabled until you pay thousands so you can attach a new piece of equipment for it. The old one, which is just a usable as when you took it new out of the package is thrown away.
Now how do you think this scam is defended? By the DMCA of course. If you hacked their software to circumvent the inactivation process, you would be breaking the law.
It's a perfect example of the monumental waste and expense borne by the public as a result of IP law.

I might add that up to this point, hospitals haven't cared a bit about this kind of thing since they were just passing all of their expenses, along with a hefty markup, on to the insurance companies, or in the unlucky cases - directly to the patients. We will see how much this changes in the next few years since it remains unclear exactly how Obamacare is going to play out.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Copyright has now reached the point of ridiculousness that the medieval Roman Church reached around 1500. The Pirate Bay are the modern day Martin Luthers. Copyright will be looked back on in the same way we now look back on the sale of indulgences (but how are we going to finance the building of 100ft high Cathedrals?)

Re: OEM abuse of copyright concepts

A noble goal my friend. It is too bad that you are under the delusion that there is such a thing as "intellectual property". Just look at those two words. They don't go together! You can't own an idea.

OBDC-II

Since 1996, all new cars sold in the US were required to have an OBDC-II connector accessible to read the diagnostic codes. This is a federal law.

Now what kind of nonsense is a law that now makes any data through the connector proprietary?

I have no problems making some of the information proprietary, but the common sort of info that tells you which sensor is bad, or which cylinder isn't firing properly should still be available via OBDC-II.

Dealerships have been doing this for some time

Some vehicles have been designed so that even simple things like replacing a headlight lamp require special (read propriatary) tools that only dealerships have.
I seem to recall a case where the tool had been trademarked (to prevent non-dealerships from obtaining the same tool). I've searched the web for this but can not seem to find the case.
Anyhow, a great way the auto makers are serving their customers (eh hem, I mean themselves).